On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:30:13 +0000 Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hmm... do we still need to skip syscalls? > > Yeah, I see what you mean. Since you moved the syscalls in the docs inside > namespaces, there shouldn't be any syscall definitions in the global scope > anymore and therefore we don't need to skip them any longer. > > I tried it out here and indeed it works fine without skipping them. > > But I wonder if it would be a good safety measure to leave it there anyway. We > never want to cross-reference to syscalls in the global scope, so if we > continue > doing that skip, even if someone accidentally adds a syscall definition > outside > a c:namespace, this will prevent cross-references to it anyway. > > What do you think? I put the original skip logic in there to keep it from even trying to cross-reference common syscall names; I wasn't really even worried about false references at that point. I'd leave the check in unless it's actively causing trouble somewhere... Thanks, jon
